I rarely disagree with the Supreme Court, but this is one of them. Doesn't every courthouse have a law library? So there isn't really an issue with knowledge, as their could have been in the 1800 when people couldn't read. But, Giddeon v. Wainright was decided in 1963.

My problems with this so-called right are:

1. How can you have a right to someone else's services?2. If it is indeed a right, why is it only applied to certain crimes and to defendants who are poor? If it is a right, shouldn't everyone have access to a public defender, if they so opted for one?

Any thoughts?

The sixth amendment reads, in part:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I intrepret that to mean:Everyone has the right to obtain council, which is not the same as being provided council at someone else's expense.

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

I agree. If you can't afford a lawyer , defend yourself. I shouldn't have to pay for your lawyer.

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush

There's no reason to object to this and not to other things. Why should I pay for your fire department? Why should I pay for your police force? Those are much better things to object to. In fact, if you reject the police force, the attorney issue won't even come up :)

At 2/6/2013 5:11:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:It's considered a positive right through the Constitution.

There's no reason to object to this and not to other things. Why should I pay for your fire department? Why should I pay for your police force? Those are much better things to object to. In fact, if you reject the police force, the attorney issue won't even come up :)

Many towns have opt-in fire coverage, and the police are required to help you regardless. No one absolutely needs attorney.

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush

At 2/6/2013 5:11:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:It's considered a positive right through the Constitution.

There's no reason to object to this and not to other things. Why should I pay for your fire department? Why should I pay for your police force? Those are much better things to object to. In fact, if you reject the police force, the attorney issue won't even come up :)

Many towns have opt-in fire coverage, and the police are required to help you regardless.

Is/ought logical fallacy. Why should the police be obligated to help you?

No one absolutely needs attorney.

Yes, you do, if you are in the court. You will be eaten alive by the prosecutor if you have no legal training. That is why this was given to defendants in the first place-so that innocent people would not go to jail. Now, I know that you have a distorted sense of morality in which guilty rapists are innocent, but are you actually going to claim that innocent people should suffer in the legal system?

At 2/6/2013 5:11:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:It's considered a positive right through the Constitution.

There's no reason to object to this and not to other things. Why should I pay for your fire department? Why should I pay for your police force? Those are much better things to object to. In fact, if you reject the police force, the attorney issue won't even come up :)

Why do you pay for my fire department? I would assume property taxes are used for that.

But, royal, if it is a right, then why is it not extended to ALL citizens? Why not in ALL criminal proceedings, like petty misdemeanors? I doubt a millionare would opt for a public defender for a murder case, but why is the millionare barred from free council, if it is a right?

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

At 2/6/2013 5:11:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:It's considered a positive right through the Constitution.

There's no reason to object to this and not to other things. Why should I pay for your fire department? Why should I pay for your police force? Those are much better things to object to. In fact, if you reject the police force, the attorney issue won't even come up :)

Why do you pay for my fire department? I would assume property taxes are used for that.

But, royal, if it is a right, then why is it not extended to ALL citizens? Why not in ALL criminal proceedings, like petty misdemeanors? I doubt a millionare would opt for a public defender for a murder case, but why is the millionare barred from free council, if it is a right?

I'm not defending the rationale, but essentially the reason is that those people can afford attorneys and the poor cannot. They have no choice as to whether or not to get an attorney, but the billionaire does.

I wouldn't want a public defender on any of my cases anyways. They are over worked, underpaid, generally sullen, and the people who were the lowest scorers in law school.

At 2/6/2013 5:11:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:It's considered a positive right through the Constitution.

There's no reason to object to this and not to other things. Why should I pay for your fire department? Why should I pay for your police force? Those are much better things to object to. In fact, if you reject the police force, the attorney issue won't even come up :)

Why do you pay for my fire department? I would assume property taxes are used for that.

But, royal, if it is a right, then why is it not extended to ALL citizens? Why not in ALL criminal proceedings, like petty misdemeanors? I doubt a millionare would opt for a public defender for a murder case, but why is the millionare barred from free council, if it is a right?

I'm not defending the rationale, but essentially the reason is that those people can afford attorneys and the poor cannot. They have no choice as to whether or not to get an attorney, but the billionaire does.

I am sure that is the reason. But, if it is a right, then it should be afforded to everyone, regardless if it is exercised. We agree on this, right?

Anecdote: I had a manager (woman) who was fighting a domestic abuse charge. She did not qualify for a public defender. She made about $20-25K with two kids. Hardly a millionare, but she still had to pay for an attorney.

I wouldn't want a public defender on any of my cases anyways. They are over worked, underpaid, generally sullen, and the people who were the lowest scorers in law school.

They're still better than nothing, I suppose. But, yes, I would prefer a "normal" lawyer.

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

At 2/6/2013 4:11:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I rarely disagree with the Supreme Court, but this is one of them. Doesn't every courthouse have a law library? So there isn't really an issue with knowledge, as their could have been in the 1800 when people couldn't read. But, Giddeon v. Wainright was decided in 1963.

My problems with this so-called right are:

1. How can you have a right to someone else's services?

Like... the police, post office, waste disposal...?

2. If it is indeed a right, why is it only applied to certain crimes and to defendants who are poor? If it is a right, shouldn't everyone have access to a public defender, if they so opted for one?

Because the law is complicated matter that average people aren't expected to be able to navigate correctly. Think of it like a settlement out of court. One of the reasons you do it because it is cheaper than going to court. Likewise, simply giving people a public defender is cheaper than having them defend themselves poorly, then having them appeal the case and argue that they weren't represented properly! Also, knowing the law makes the case go by faster, and what most people know about the law is what they see on Law an Order. Giving them a court appointed lawyer may actually be the cheaper option, all things considered.

As far as not giving it to people who can afford it, no, I see no reason why rights can't be conditional.

Any thoughts?

The sixth amendment reads, in part:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I intrepret that to mean:Everyone has the right to obtain council, which is not the same as being provided council at someone else's expense.

At 2/6/2013 4:11:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:My problems with this so-called right are:

1. How can you have a right to someone else's services?

You don't, you have a right not to be convicted as an innocent. The state doesn't have to give you an attorney, it can choose not to try and assault you in court instead. It's part of due process, not some sort of welfare right.

2. If it is indeed a right, why is it only applied to certain crimes and to defendants who are poor?

Part 1: Unfortunately due process protections aren't consistently applied, w/r/t criminal matters where attorneys are not provided (civil matters, it should probably be at the plaintiff's expense, although that raises a bundle of complex issues))Part 2: I doubt anyone's ever demanded before the Supreme Court that a public defender be appointed when they can afford something better for their defense. The Supreme Court can't decide matters that have never been brought before it.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 2/6/2013 5:11:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:There's no reason to object to this and not to other things. Why should I pay for your fire department? Why should I pay for your police force? Those are much better things to object to. In fact, if you reject the police force, the attorney issue won't even come up :)

Those other things you indeed have no entitlement to.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 2/6/2013 4:11:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I rarely disagree with the Supreme Court, but this is one of them. Doesn't every courthouse have a law library? So there isn't really an issue with knowledge, as their could have been in the 1800 when people couldn't read. But, Giddeon v. Wainright was decided in 1963.

My problems with this so-called right are:

1. How can you have a right to someone else's services?

Most rights eventually lead to the requirement of someone else's services, lest they wouldn't even be enforceable.

2. If it is indeed a right, why is it only applied to certain crimes and to defendants who are poor?

It's not...?

If it is a right, shouldn't everyone have access to a public defender, if they so opted for one?

They do. However, private, expensive attorneys tend to be an order of magnitude better at their jobs than public defenders, although this isn't always the case, as there still exists those that do their job as a matter of passion, rather than for profit (though those people are rare).

Any thoughts?

The sixth amendment reads, in part:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I intrepret that to mean:Everyone has the right to obtain council, which is not the same as being provided council at someone else's expense.

At 2/6/2013 4:11:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I rarely disagree with the Supreme Court, but this is one of them. Doesn't every courthouse have a law library? So there isn't really an issue with knowledge, as their could have been in the 1800 when people couldn't read. But, Giddeon v. Wainright was decided in 1963.

My problems with this so-called right are:

1. How can you have a right to someone else's services?

Most rights eventually lead to the requirement of someone else's services, lest they wouldn't even be enforceable.

To say "Bob recognizes the rights of life liberty and property" is to say that Bob will not himself violate those rights.To say "The government recognizes the rights of life liberty and property" is to say both that; and; because it's a government, that it offers services to help you protect those from people who do not recognize them. If the government is not a hypocrite, this is merely an offer, you pay for it if you want it and don't if you'd rather not or think the price is too high (and if you don't pay you don't get). Unless the government is a charity but that's just silly. (Taxation is the "the government is a hypocrite" option).

2. If it is indeed a right, why is it only applied to certain crimes and to defendants who are poor?

It's not...?

To have an attorney appointed for you, in many states, you have to show evidence of indigence-- at the least signing an oath affirming you can't afford an attorney.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Now, keep in mind, "providing an attorney" is a safeguard by which a government prevents itself from violating your right to life liberty and property (by making sure you haven't done anything to cancel those), not some positive entitlement by which it protects you from third parties.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 2/6/2013 4:11:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I rarely disagree with the Supreme Court, but this is one of them. Doesn't every courthouse have a law library? So there isn't really an issue with knowledge, as their could have been in the 1800 when people couldn't read. But, Giddeon v. Wainright was decided in 1963.

My problems with this so-called right are:

1. How can you have a right to someone else's services?

Fundamental to the idea of criminal justice is the protection of the innocent. To the extent that the lay man is incapable of proffering his own defense from criminal charges, it becomes necessary to provide for the discrepancy of expertise between the prosecutor representing "the people" and the accused. The argument that one cannot have a "right" to someone else's services ignores the role that attorneys play in the process of criminal justice. Moreover, the rule that one cannot have a "right" to the services of another furthermore ignores the social interconnection that is implied in a civil society. Contrary to the notions of libertarians, no man is his own sovereign. Were that the case, we would be perpetually in the state of nature.

2. If it is indeed a right, why is it only applied to certain crimes and to defendants who are poor? If it is a right, shouldn't everyone have access to a public defender, if they so opted for one?

The right to legal counsel is not one extended only to the poor. The notion is that your right to a defense is not contingent upon your ability to pay for it. The reason that most with the resources opt for the defense of a public defender is that they are usually incompetent and the quality of representation is usually drastically inferior to that of private attorneys. This is because law schools graduate -less than competent- attorneys, bar exams are too easy and the better students get jobs at private firms.

Any thoughts?

The sixth amendment reads, in part:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I intrepret that to mean:Everyone has the right to obtain council, which is not the same as being provided council at someone else's expense.

Your interpretation is wrong and misconstrues the principles of justice in the United States.

At 2/6/2013 4:43:44 AM, tmar19652 wrote:I agree. If you can't afford a lawyer , defend yourself. I shouldn't have to pay for your lawyer.

I love this logic.

1. You aren't paying for anything. Once you pay taxes, it isn't your money any more. You have no right or entitlement to it. It's gone. It's the government's.

2. What's the thought process here? That you'd get that money back if they stopped providing Public Defender's that you'd get that money back? What world are you living in? They'd just allocate that money somewhere else. And since providing people some sort of protection against government abuse is a pretty good allocation of funds, eliminating it basically guarantees it'll go to some more nefarious/less useful purpose.

At 2/6/2013 4:43:44 AM, tmar19652 wrote:I agree. If you can't afford a lawyer , defend yourself. I shouldn't have to pay for your lawyer.

I love this logic.

1. You aren't paying for anything. Once you pay taxes, it isn't your money any more. You have no right or entitlement to it. It's gone. It's the government's.

The reason is because one is not entitled to that money which is to be paid in taxes to begin with. It was never his. It was always already due to the government because it was theirs.

2. What's the thought process here? That you'd get that money back if they stopped providing Public Defender's that you'd get that money back? What world are you living in? They'd just allocate that money somewhere else. And since providing people some sort of protection against government abuse is a pretty good allocation of funds, eliminating it basically guarantees it'll go to some more nefarious/less useful purpose.

I understand the government is to enact laws and rule on them, this requires people to do these jobs. So, the argument could be made that, since our legal heritage is combative in nature, there MUST be a willing and able opponent for the defense. I do not wholly disagree with the idea of a public defender, so long as they are willing. A shortage of D.A.s would simply be an exercise of judicial economics, prosecuting the most important cases. I do not know what would happen if there were a shortage of defense lawyers...

Regardless, if this is the reason why a lawyer MUST be provided as a right, then it should apply to ALL cases, and ALL defendants. Various people are saying this is not true. It is in MN, go to arraingment for traffic court and listen to their speech: not all charges (petty misdemeanors) are eligible for a public defender, and you must file paperwork (be deemed eligible) to be represented by a public defender.

An anecdote:I had a manager (woman) who was fighting a gross misdemeanor of domestic assault. Her income was less than $25K, and household income would have been less than $55K, with two children. Hardly rich in my opinion...

Others have said that rights can be selective, probably the best argument I've heard. But if that is the case, why can the selection not yeild zero people? Only the poor, illiterate, and those facing the death penalty are eligible for a public defender (since MN has no death penalty, there is no PD for anyone). The more restrictive the right becomes to exercise, the more meaningless the right becomes, as it becomes more of a priviledge.

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

At 2/6/2013 8:53:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I understand the government is to enact laws and rule on them, this requires people to do these jobs. So, the argument could be made that, since our legal heritage is combative in nature, there MUST be a willing and able opponent for the defense. I do not wholly disagree with the idea of a public defender, so long as they are willing. A shortage of D.A.s would simply be an exercise of judicial economics, prosecuting the most important cases. I do not know what would happen if there were a shortage of defense lawyers...

Regardless, if this is the reason why a lawyer MUST be provided as a right, then it should apply to ALL cases, and ALL defendants. Various people are saying this is not true. It is in MN, go to arraingment for traffic court and listen to their speech: not all charges (petty misdemeanors) are eligible for a public defender, and you must file paperwork (be deemed eligible) to be represented by a public defender.

An anecdote:I had a manager (woman) who was fighting a gross misdemeanor of domestic assault. Her income was less than $25K, and household income would have been less than $55K, with two children. Hardly rich in my opinion...

Others have said that rights can be selective, probably the best argument I've heard. But if that is the case, why can the selection not yeild zero people? Only the poor, illiterate, and those facing the death penalty are eligible for a public defender (since MN has no death penalty, there is no PD for anyone). The more restrictive the right becomes to exercise, the more meaningless the right becomes, as it becomes more of a priviledge.

They don't have unlimited funds.

Also, a lot of law school grads are out of work. I bet some are more than willing to do this.

At 2/6/2013 8:53:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I understand the government is to enact laws and rule on them, this requires people to do these jobs. So, the argument could be made that, since our legal heritage is combative in nature, there MUST be a willing and able opponent for the defense. I do not wholly disagree with the idea of a public defender, so long as they are willing. A shortage of D.A.s would simply be an exercise of judicial economics, prosecuting the most important cases. I do not know what would happen if there were a shortage of defense lawyers...

Regardless, if this is the reason why a lawyer MUST be provided as a right, then it should apply to ALL cases, and ALL defendants. Various people are saying this is not true. It is in MN, go to arraingment for traffic court and listen to their speech: not all charges (petty misdemeanors) are eligible for a public defender, and you must file paperwork (be deemed eligible) to be represented by a public defender.

An anecdote:I had a manager (woman) who was fighting a gross misdemeanor of domestic assault. Her income was less than $25K, and household income would have been less than $55K, with two children. Hardly rich in my opinion...

Others have said that rights can be selective, probably the best argument I've heard. But if that is the case, why can the selection not yeild zero people? Only the poor, illiterate, and those facing the death penalty are eligible for a public defender (since MN has no death penalty, there is no PD for anyone). The more restrictive the right becomes to exercise, the more meaningless the right becomes, as it becomes more of a priviledge.

Arrests are not made for traffic tickets. You are issued the ticket and on it is a summons to appear before a judge. If you do not appear, then you will be arrested -and you would have the right to counsel. It is when you are placed under arrest that you have the right to an attorney, which is why people are Mirandized at the point of arrest.

At 2/6/2013 8:53:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I understand the government is to enact laws and rule on them, this requires people to do these jobs. So, the argument could be made that, since our legal heritage is combative in nature, there MUST be a willing and able opponent for the defense. I do not wholly disagree with the idea of a public defender, so long as they are willing. A shortage of D.A.s would simply be an exercise of judicial economics, prosecuting the most important cases. I do not know what would happen if there were a shortage of defense lawyers...

Regardless, if this is the reason why a lawyer MUST be provided as a right, then it should apply to ALL cases, and ALL defendants. Various people are saying this is not true. It is in MN, go to arraingment for traffic court and listen to their speech: not all charges (petty misdemeanors) are eligible for a public defender, and you must file paperwork (be deemed eligible) to be represented by a public defender.

An anecdote:I had a manager (woman) who was fighting a gross misdemeanor of domestic assault. Her income was less than $25K, and household income would have been less than $55K, with two children. Hardly rich in my opinion...

Others have said that rights can be selective, probably the best argument I've heard. But if that is the case, why can the selection not yeild zero people? Only the poor, illiterate, and those facing the death penalty are eligible for a public defender (since MN has no death penalty, there is no PD for anyone). The more restrictive the right becomes to exercise, the more meaningless the right becomes, as it becomes more of a priviledge.

Arrests are not made for traffic tickets. You are issued the ticket and on it is a summons to appear before a judge. If you do not appear, then you will be arrested -and you would have the right to counsel.

The summons for a traffic ticket is for arraignment. You are not arrested and have a bail hearing, but if you plead not guilty, you do in fact have a trial, even for a speeding ticket. I recently had a seatbelt violation, and came to court (after a trial date was set) with my evidence. The only witness to be called was the police officer, but the state dismissed the charges before court was in session. I could have had an attorney represent me, but I would have had to pay for it.

The issue is, if I plead not guilty to a speeding ticket, I do not have the right to an attorney, even though a trial will occur. If I were to not appear, that is me waiving my right to a trial and am automatically found guilty. My arrest would be for unpaid tickets, which I simply pay, and then would be released with no trial or additional charges. I assume my not paying is along the lines of a contempt of court, so I am held until I am no longer in contempt.

It is when you are placed under arrest that you have the right to an attorney, which is why people are Mirandized at the point of arrest.

Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation. The typical warning states:[3]

You have the right to remain silent.Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is not applied to everyone. People in this thread have stated it is applied to everyone, or at least, that is what it appears they meant.

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

At 2/6/2013 5:11:18 AM, royalpaladin wrote:It's considered a positive right through the Constitution.

There's no reason to object to this and not to other things. Why should I pay for your fire department? Why should I pay for your police force? Those are much better things to object to. In fact, if you reject the police force, the attorney issue won't even come up :)

Are you telling me that if morality and logic is applied consistently, justification for the state withers away? :O omg.

At 2/6/2013 8:53:22 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I understand the government is to enact laws and rule on them, this requires people to do these jobs. So, the argument could be made that, since our legal heritage is combative in nature, there MUST be a willing and able opponent for the defense. I do not wholly disagree with the idea of a public defender, so long as they are willing. A shortage of D.A.s would simply be an exercise of judicial economics, prosecuting the most important cases. I do not know what would happen if there were a shortage of defense lawyers...

Regardless, if this is the reason why a lawyer MUST be provided as a right, then it should apply to ALL cases, and ALL defendants. Various people are saying this is not true. It is in MN, go to arraingment for traffic court and listen to their speech: not all charges (petty misdemeanors) are eligible for a public defender, and you must file paperwork (be deemed eligible) to be represented by a public defender.

An anecdote:I had a manager (woman) who was fighting a gross misdemeanor of domestic assault. Her income was less than $25K, and household income would have been less than $55K, with two children. Hardly rich in my opinion...

Others have said that rights can be selective, probably the best argument I've heard. But if that is the case, why can the selection not yeild zero people? Only the poor, illiterate, and those facing the death penalty are eligible for a public defender (since MN has no death penalty, there is no PD for anyone). The more restrictive the right becomes to exercise, the more meaningless the right becomes, as it becomes more of a priviledge.

Arrests are not made for traffic tickets. You are issued the ticket and on it is a summons to appear before a judge. If you do not appear, then you will be arrested -and you would have the right to counsel.

The summons for a traffic ticket is for arraignment. You are not arrested and have a bail hearing, but if you plead not guilty, you do in fact have a trial, even for a speeding ticket. I recently had a seatbelt violation, and came to court (after a trial date was set) with my evidence. The only witness to be called was the police officer, but the state dismissed the charges before court was in session. I could have had an attorney represent me, but I would have had to pay for it.

The issue is, if I plead not guilty to a speeding ticket, I do not have the right to an attorney, even though a trial will occur. If I were to not appear, that is me waiving my right to a trial and am automatically found guilty. My arrest would be for unpaid tickets, which I simply pay, and then would be released with no trial or additional charges. I assume my not paying is along the lines of a contempt of court, so I am held until I am no longer in contempt.

It is when you are placed under arrest that you have the right to an attorney, which is why people are Mirandized at the point of arrest.

Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation. The typical warning states:[3]

You have the right to remain silent.Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is not applied to everyone. People in this thread have stated it is applied to everyone, or at least, that is what it appears they meant.

2. If it is indeed a right, why is it only applied to certain crimes and to defendants who are poor? If it is a right, shouldn't everyone have access to a public defender, if they so opted for one?

The right to legal counsel is not one extended only to the poor. The notion is that your right to a defense is not contingent upon your ability to pay for it. The reason that most with the resources opt for the defense of a public defender is that they are usually incompetent and the quality of representation is usually drastically inferior to that of private attorneys. This is because law schools graduate -less than competent- attorneys, bar exams are too easy and the better students get jobs at private firms.

This point is proven false by both the text of the Miranda warning and my anecdote. You respond by saying I am funny; I'm a bit disappointed in your response.

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

At 2/6/2013 4:11:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I rarely disagree with the Supreme Court, but this is one of them. Doesn't every courthouse have a law library? So there isn't really an issue with knowledge, as their could have been in the 1800 when people couldn't read. But, Giddeon v. Wainright was decided in 1963.

My problems with this so-called right are:

1. How can you have a right to someone else's services?2. If it is indeed a right, why is it only applied to certain crimes and to defendants who are poor? If it is a right, shouldn't everyone have access to a public defender, if they so opted for one?

Any thoughts?

The sixth amendment reads, in part:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I intrepret that to mean:Everyone has the right to obtain council, which is not the same as being provided council at someone else's expense.

A. The law is one thing. The procedural crap is quite another, and it's intimidating for the uninitiated.

B. English Common Law - much more of our law comes from this tradition than from the Constitution, and that's where the little bits you don't like about Miranda come from.

At 2/6/2013 4:11:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I rarely disagree with the Supreme Court, but this is one of them. Doesn't every courthouse have a law library? So there isn't really an issue with knowledge, as their could have been in the 1800 when people couldn't read. But, Giddeon v. Wainright was decided in 1963.

My problems with this so-called right are:

1. How can you have a right to someone else's services?2. If it is indeed a right, why is it only applied to certain crimes and to defendants who are poor? If it is a right, shouldn't everyone have access to a public defender, if they so opted for one?

Any thoughts?

The sixth amendment reads, in part:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I intrepret that to mean:Everyone has the right to obtain council, which is not the same as being provided council at someone else's expense.

A. The law is one thing. The procedural crap is quite another, and it's intimidating for the uninitiated.

B. English Common Law - much more of our law comes from this tradition than from the Constitution, and that's where the little bits you don't like about Miranda come from.

Also, it's hard to study the law after, or during, 24 hours straight of intense interrogation where you were fed coffee initially and then been put on toilet prohibition.

Sometimes the need for counsel is before the opportunity for study. given that the tyranny of the state is what this fights, I'm OK with going a bit overboard here.

And, I've helped out people who have had public defenders assigned to them. Unless it's a high profile case, you're not going to get a defense from a PD unless you build it yourself (or have a friend do it for you). It's not like we're paying for Johnny Cochrin for every nothing criminal offense and offender out there. Is this really an expense that you worry about? Ever look it up for your county?

At 2/6/2013 4:11:54 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:I rarely disagree with the Supreme Court, but this is one of them. Doesn't every courthouse have a law library? So there isn't really an issue with knowledge, as their could have been in the 1800 when people couldn't read. But, Giddeon v. Wainright was decided in 1963.

My problems with this so-called right are:

1. How can you have a right to someone else's services?2. If it is indeed a right, why is it only applied to certain crimes and to defendants who are poor? If it is a right, shouldn't everyone have access to a public defender, if they so opted for one?

Any thoughts?

The sixth amendment reads, in part:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I intrepret that to mean:Everyone has the right to obtain council, which is not the same as being provided council at someone else's expense.

A. The law is one thing. The procedural crap is quite another, and it's intimidating for the uninitiated.

Indeed.

To be clear, I don't have an issue with tax dollars being spent on PDs, so long as they are willing. But, if for some reason, there were a shortage of lawyers, and there was no PD on the county's payroll, who would represent the accussed? It may not ever occur, but it is the principle I am concerned about.

I heard when I was a kid that the state will demand some practicing lawyer to represent the accussed if there was no PD available.

B. English Common Law - much more of our law comes from this tradition than from the Constitution, and that's where the little bits you don't like about Miranda come from.

My issue is that one has to be deemed unable to afford a lawyer, which is obviously subjective and unequal. In America, it should not be. In England (and definately England of old), if you were told to do something by the King, you did it; you weren't supposedly free like you are in America, you were his subject.

At least the noble sheep provides us warm sweaters. All your hides would provide are coward pants. - Dick Solomon

But, if for some reason, there were a shortage of lawyers, and there was no PD on the county's payroll, who would represent the accussed?

If due process is not respected, the government has to release you unmolested. It is not obligated to conscript lawyers, it is obligated to leave you the hell alone, no matter what you allegedly did, if it cannot meet due process. As a citizen of the United States, you are lawfully immune from prosecutions and punishments that due not meet constitutional requirements for prosecutions and punishments..

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.